3 ms·

Things that do not make sense (2005)

41 points by quoderat 17y ago

Eliezer 17y ago
When Fabrizio Benedetti of the University of Turin in Italy carried out the above experiment, he added a final twist by adding naloxone, a drug that blocks the effects of morphine, to the saline. The shocking result? The pain-relieving power of saline solution disappeared. When I read this, I said, out loud, "What the flying farkmipple?" So does naloxone block placebo effects in general, or only placebo morphine? Inquiring minds want to know.
- seiji 17y ago
  The placebo opiate link is widely known. Naloxone blocks opiate receptors which blocks placebo effect. Also, children aren't susceptible to a placebo effect. Check out a good lecture on pain at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQS0tdIbJ0w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQS0tdIbJ0w for more context.
  - Eliezer 17y ago
    Thank you, kind sir or madam!
- rms 17y ago
  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v306/n5940/abs/306264a0.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v306/n5940/abs/306264a0... Naloxone blocks placebo analgesia in general. I can dig up the referenced papers if you don't have access.
Avshalom 17y ago
Astronomers call this boundary the Kuiper cliff, because the density of space rocks drops off so steeply. What caused it? The only answer seems to be a 10th planet. We're not talking about Quaoar or Sedna: this is a massive object, as big as Earth or Mars, that has swept the area clean of debris. They've got this kind of backwards. They describe this like something basically pushed parts of the Kuiper belt inward to form the steep gradient. We're pretty sure Neptune and Pluto pushed things out to form the Kuiper belt. As well Mike Brown's work that found Xena, Santa, Easter Bunny etc. would have picked up on a Mars sized object past the Kuiper Belt but close enough to shepard things. Maybe we can't work out what dark matter is because it doesn't actually exist. That's certainly the way Rubin would like it to turn out. "If I could have my pick, I would like to learn that Newton's laws must be modified in order to correctly describe gravitational interactions at large distances," she says. "That's more appealing than a universe filled with a new kind of sub-nuclear particle." Actually modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND equations are WAAAAY harder to swallow than dark matter. Dark Matter: The majority of particles don't interact significantly with photons MOND: Particles shooting through space either spontaneously replicate or behave non geometrically. Gravity falling off at 1/R^2 is a consequence of geometry, the surface area of a sphere. MOND proposes 1/R^2 + R/N (for some very large but arbitrary number N) which makes NO physical sense. Meanwhile gravitational lensing observations continue to provide evidence for "invisible" matter. If the observations are correct, the only vaguely reasonable explanation is that a constant of physics called the fine structure constant, or alpha, had a different value at the time the light passed through the clouds. But that's heresy. Alpha is an extremely important constant that determines how light interacts with matter - and it shouldn't be able to change. Its value depends on, among other things, the charge on the electron, the speed of light and Planck's constant. Could one of these really have changed? Actually any sophomore or junior in college is exposed to the concept of evolution in the fine structure constant, while it isn't taught as definitive, it's hardly heresy. AND it goes on, none of these (at least the physics based ones) really have much debate in the scientific world.
- aristus 17y ago
  Were they debatable 4 years ago, when this was written?
  - Avshalom 17y ago
    Kuiper Belt stuff, yes...ish Dark Matter, eh we had a lot less direct evidence of it but MOND still made no sense. The rest? not particularly.
- sho 17y ago
  (disclaimer: layman speaking) "We're pretty sure Neptune and Pluto pushed things out to form the Kuiper belt." Perhaps, but that's not the question - the question is why the sudden drop-off beyond a certain point? It's not about what is pushing objects out, it's about what is (apparently) pushing them back in. There is a large spike in density centred around 44 - 46 AU which abruptly trails off by 50, the sharpness of the edge implying something holding them in/clearing the zone/having done that in the past. An undiscovered massive object is as reasonable an explanation as any other at this point. Works for Saturn's rings, after all. And I don't think Pluto is large enough to do much "pushing" - the whole reason it was downgraded to sub-planet status was because it had failed to clear its orbit. Neptune, sure, but even that doesn't have much mojo beyond about 48AU. As well Mike Brown's work that found Xena, Santa, Easter Bunny etc. would have picked up on a Mars sized object past the Kuiper Belt but close enough to shepard things." Let's remember that these are all very recent discoveries; the ones you mentioned are from 2005, and they're relatively close compared to the "cliff". If we're still finding completely new objects that huge and that nearby just in the last few years, I wouldn't be so sure to rule out something pretty big hiding outside the Belt. As Brown himself said, "Could Lykawka's planet be out there and have been missed? Easily." Oh well, we'll know for sure soon enough. Pan-STARRS et al should definitively answer this and many other questions.
  - Avshalom 17y ago
    Perhaps, but that's not the question - the question is why the sudden drop-off beyond a certain point? It's not about what is pushing objects out, it's about what is (apparently) pushing them back in. There is a large spike in density centred around 44 - 46 AU which abruptly trails off by 50, the sharpness of the edge implying something holding them in/clearing the zone/having done that in the past. An undiscovered massive object is as reasonable an explanation as any other at this point. Works for Saturn's rings, after all. This is what I mean by thinking about it backwards. take a bunch of M&M's scatter them on you're desk then push all the ones in the center out, you get a big high density belt and a steep drop off due to that high density. And I don't think Pluto is large enough to do much "pushing" - the whole reason it was downgraded to sub-planet status was because it had failed to clear its orbit. Neptune, sure, but even that doesn't have much mojo beyond about 48AU. Pluto got de-ranked for a whole suite of things beyond it's local orbit, the largest reason being nobody wanted to admit that if Pluto counts so does about 100 other things and thats inelegant. personal bitterness aside it doesn't need to be very big for a resonant orbit to push things around, which Neptune helps set up (disclaimer this is largely a recollection of Mike's work on the Belt from last time I heard him lecture about it) As Brown himself said, "Could Lykawka's planet be out there and have been missed? Easily." Okay fair enough, but possibly there and missed isn't anywhere close to necessary to explain physical phenomena
tamersalama 17y ago
2 The horizon problem .. You can solve the horizon problem by having the universe expand ultra-fast for a time .. Quran 51:47 http://islam.thetruecall.com/Quran_Chapter_51:47.htm http://islam.thetruecall.com/Quran_Chapter_51:47.htm
m104 17y ago
Oh, we definitely understand number 4 now. All scientists and researchers should be aware of the observer-expectancy effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect Wikipedia also briefly covers the debunking of the Belfast homeopathy results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory#Subsequent_research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory#Subsequent_researc...
- whatusername 17y ago
  But that still takes number 4 into #1 territory (Placebo effect). It's good to know that homeopathy is pretty much bunk as expected though - thanks for those links! I was rather confused when I first saw this article.
  - m104 17y ago
    From the perspective of the patients in this type of research and "treatment," I think you are correct. Looking at the effect on science and knowledge as a whole, however, the observer-expectancy effect is quite damaging and is not a mystery at all. This team (and many other teams) of unfortunate researchers got caught up in a belief system that skewed their results. Ironically, the more skeptical one is of a particular belief, the deeper in love one will fall with it when it appears to be correct.
Ardit20 17y ago
That should be retitled to 13 things that do not make sense in Physics.
Allocator2008 17y ago
Regarding the tetraneutron issue: I would be interested if they could repeat the experiment which supposedly detected this. My guess is that this was a statistical anomaly. It is highly unlikely 4 neutrons could arrive more or less at the same time at the same place in the detector, but the alternative, that something is wrong with the Pauli exclusion principle, may be even more unlikely. Accordingly I would seriously bet if they did the exact same experiment again (shooting beryllium atoms at a carbon target) that they would not detect any "tetra-neutrons". With things like this, I always remember something Sherlock Holmes said in 'A Study in Scarlett' I think it was though not quite sure where it was exactly - "Once one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the case." Here, it strikes me that though the anomaly seen was very improbable, the alternative idea that the Pauli exclusion principle and hence the standard model is wrong in some way is tantamount to impossible. It is far easier for me to believe what they saw was just a fluke, than to think there is an issue with the Pauli exclusion principle. Of course, if they can repeat the experiment, that is something else again, and I suppose then further inquiry would be warranted.

41 points by quoderat 17y ago

When Fabrizio Benedetti of the University of Turin in Italy carried out the above experiment, he added a final twist by adding naloxone, a drug that blocks the effects of morphine, to the saline. The shocking result? The pain-relieving power of saline solution disappeared. When I read this, I said, out loud, "What the flying farkmipple?" So does naloxone block placebo effects in general, or only placebo morphine? Inquiring minds want to know.

seiji 17y ago
The placebo opiate link is widely known. Naloxone blocks opiate receptors which blocks placebo effect. Also, children aren't susceptible to a placebo effect. Check out a good lecture on pain at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQS0tdIbJ0w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQS0tdIbJ0w for more context.
- Eliezer 17y ago
  Thank you, kind sir or madam!
rms 17y ago
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v306/n5940/abs/306264a0.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v306/n5940/abs/306264a0... Naloxone blocks placebo analgesia in general. I can dig up the referenced papers if you don't have access.

Avshalom 17y ago

Astronomers call this boundary the Kuiper cliff, because the density of space rocks drops off so steeply. What caused it? The only answer seems to be a 10th planet. We're not talking about Quaoar or Sedna: this is a massive object, as big as Earth or Mars, that has swept the area clean of debris. They've got this kind of backwards. They describe this like something basically pushed parts of the Kuiper belt inward to form the steep gradient. We're pretty sure Neptune and Pluto pushed things out to form the Kuiper belt. As well Mike Brown's work that found Xena, Santa, Easter Bunny etc. would have picked up on a Mars sized object past the Kuiper Belt but close enough to shepard things. Maybe we can't work out what dark matter is because it doesn't actually exist. That's certainly the way Rubin would like it to turn out. "If I could have my pick, I would like to learn that Newton's laws must be modified in order to correctly describe gravitational interactions at large distances," she says. "That's more appealing than a universe filled with a new kind of sub-nuclear particle." Actually modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND equations are WAAAAY harder to swallow than dark matter. Dark Matter: The majority of particles don't interact significantly with photons MOND: Particles shooting through space either spontaneously replicate or behave non geometrically. Gravity falling off at 1/R^2 is a consequence of geometry, the surface area of a sphere. MOND proposes 1/R^2 + R/N (for some very large but arbitrary number N) which makes NO physical sense. Meanwhile gravitational lensing observations continue to provide evidence for "invisible" matter. If the observations are correct, the only vaguely reasonable explanation is that a constant of physics called the fine structure constant, or alpha, had a different value at the time the light passed through the clouds. But that's heresy. Alpha is an extremely important constant that determines how light interacts with matter - and it shouldn't be able to change. Its value depends on, among other things, the charge on the electron, the speed of light and Planck's constant. Could one of these really have changed? Actually any sophomore or junior in college is exposed to the concept of evolution in the fine structure constant, while it isn't taught as definitive, it's hardly heresy. AND it goes on, none of these (at least the physics based ones) really have much debate in the scientific world.

aristus 17y ago
Were they debatable 4 years ago, when this was written?
- Avshalom 17y ago
  Kuiper Belt stuff, yes...ish Dark Matter, eh we had a lot less direct evidence of it but MOND still made no sense. The rest? not particularly.
sho 17y ago
(disclaimer: layman speaking) "We're pretty sure Neptune and Pluto pushed things out to form the Kuiper belt." Perhaps, but that's not the question - the question is why the sudden drop-off beyond a certain point? It's not about what is pushing objects out, it's about what is (apparently) pushing them back in. There is a large spike in density centred around 44 - 46 AU which abruptly trails off by 50, the sharpness of the edge implying something holding them in/clearing the zone/having done that in the past. An undiscovered massive object is as reasonable an explanation as any other at this point. Works for Saturn's rings, after all. And I don't think Pluto is large enough to do much "pushing" - the whole reason it was downgraded to sub-planet status was because it had failed to clear its orbit. Neptune, sure, but even that doesn't have much mojo beyond about 48AU. As well Mike Brown's work that found Xena, Santa, Easter Bunny etc. would have picked up on a Mars sized object past the Kuiper Belt but close enough to shepard things." Let's remember that these are all very recent discoveries; the ones you mentioned are from 2005, and they're relatively close compared to the "cliff". If we're still finding completely new objects that huge and that nearby just in the last few years, I wouldn't be so sure to rule out something pretty big hiding outside the Belt. As Brown himself said, "Could Lykawka's planet be out there and have been missed? Easily." Oh well, we'll know for sure soon enough. Pan-STARRS et al should definitively answer this and many other questions.
- Avshalom 17y ago
  Perhaps, but that's not the question - the question is why the sudden drop-off beyond a certain point? It's not about what is pushing objects out, it's about what is (apparently) pushing them back in. There is a large spike in density centred around 44 - 46 AU which abruptly trails off by 50, the sharpness of the edge implying something holding them in/clearing the zone/having done that in the past. An undiscovered massive object is as reasonable an explanation as any other at this point. Works for Saturn's rings, after all. This is what I mean by thinking about it backwards. take a bunch of M&M's scatter them on you're desk then push all the ones in the center out, you get a big high density belt and a steep drop off due to that high density. And I don't think Pluto is large enough to do much "pushing" - the whole reason it was downgraded to sub-planet status was because it had failed to clear its orbit. Neptune, sure, but even that doesn't have much mojo beyond about 48AU. Pluto got de-ranked for a whole suite of things beyond it's local orbit, the largest reason being nobody wanted to admit that if Pluto counts so does about 100 other things and thats inelegant. personal bitterness aside it doesn't need to be very big for a resonant orbit to push things around, which Neptune helps set up (disclaimer this is largely a recollection of Mike's work on the Belt from last time I heard him lecture about it) As Brown himself said, "Could Lykawka's planet be out there and have been missed? Easily." Okay fair enough, but possibly there and missed isn't anywhere close to necessary to explain physical phenomena

tamersalama 17y ago

2 The horizon problem .. You can solve the horizon problem by having the universe expand ultra-fast for a time .. Quran 51:47 http://islam.thetruecall.com/Quran_Chapter_51:47.htm http://islam.thetruecall.com/Quran_Chapter_51:47.htm

m104 17y ago

Oh, we definitely understand number 4 now. All scientists and researchers should be aware of the observer-expectancy effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect Wikipedia also briefly covers the debunking of the Belfast homeopathy results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory#Subsequent_research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory#Subsequent_researc...

whatusername 17y ago
But that still takes number 4 into #1 territory (Placebo effect). It's good to know that homeopathy is pretty much bunk as expected though - thanks for those links! I was rather confused when I first saw this article.
- m104 17y ago
  From the perspective of the patients in this type of research and "treatment," I think you are correct. Looking at the effect on science and knowledge as a whole, however, the observer-expectancy effect is quite damaging and is not a mystery at all. This team (and many other teams) of unfortunate researchers got caught up in a belief system that skewed their results. Ironically, the more skeptical one is of a particular belief, the deeper in love one will fall with it when it appears to be correct.

Ardit20 17y ago

That should be retitled to 13 things that do not make sense in Physics.

Allocator2008 17y ago

Regarding the tetraneutron issue: I would be interested if they could repeat the experiment which supposedly detected this. My guess is that this was a statistical anomaly. It is highly unlikely 4 neutrons could arrive more or less at the same time at the same place in the detector, but the alternative, that something is wrong with the Pauli exclusion principle, may be even more unlikely. Accordingly I would seriously bet if they did the exact same experiment again (shooting beryllium atoms at a carbon target) that they would not detect any "tetra-neutrons". With things like this, I always remember something Sherlock Holmes said in 'A Study in Scarlett' I think it was though not quite sure where it was exactly - "Once one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the case." Here, it strikes me that though the anomaly seen was very improbable, the alternative idea that the Pauli exclusion principle and hence the standard model is wrong in some way is tantamount to impossible. It is far easier for me to believe what they saw was just a fluke, than to think there is an issue with the Pauli exclusion principle. Of course, if they can repeat the experiment, that is something else again, and I suppose then further inquiry would be warranted.